+1.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141819/000089418920008331/convergenceliquidation.htm
(CPMNX)
497 1 convergenceliquidation.htm CONVERGENCE 497E
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration Nos. 333-62298; 811-10401
Convergence Market Neutral Fund
A series of Trust for Professional Managers (the “Trust”)
Supplement dated October 14, 2020
to the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”)
dated March 29, 2020
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Trust for Professional Managers (the “Trust”), based upon the recommendation of Convergence Investment Partners, LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Convergence Market Neutral Fund (the “Fund”), a series of the Trust, has determined to close and liquidate the Fund. The Board concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund be closed to new purchases, except for purchases made through an automatic investment program, as of the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on October 16, 2020 (the “Closing Date”) and liquidated as a series of the Trust effective as of the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on November 13, 2020 (the “Liquidation Date”).
The Board approved a Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) that determines the manner in which the Fund will be liquidated. Pursuant to the Plan and in anticipation of the Fund’s liquidation, the Fund will be closed to new purchases, subject to any exceptions approved by the Trust officers in their sole discretion, effective as of the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on the Closing Date, after which the Fund’s assets may be entirely invested in money market instruments or held in cash. Accordingly, the Fund will no longer be investing according to its investment objective. However, any distributions declared to shareholders of the Fund after the Closing Date and until the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on the Liquidation Date will be automatically reinvested in additional shares of the Fund unless a shareholder specifically requests that such distributions be paid in cash. Although the Fund will be closed to new purchases as of the Closing Date, you may continue to redeem your shares of the Fund until the Liquidation Date, as described in “How to Redeem Shares” in the Fund’s Prospectus.
Pursuant to the Plan, if the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the close of trading on the New York Stock Exchange on the Liquidation Date, your shares will be redeemed and you will receive proceeds representing your proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund as of the Liquidation Date, subject to any required withholdings. As is the case with any redemption of Fund shares, these liquidation proceeds will generally be subject to federal and, as applicable, state and local income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account and the liquidation proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the shares redeemed.
If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account, the liquidation proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation. You should consult with your tax adviser on the consequences of this redemption to you. If, for example, you hold your shares in an individual retirement account (and “IRA”), you have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds to reinvest or “rollover” your proceeds into another IRA and maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Fund at 1-877-677-9414 prior to November 13, 2020 of your intent to rollover your IRA account to avoid withholding deductions from your proceeds.
The Adviser will bear all of the expenses incurred in carrying out the Plan.
Shareholder inquiries should be directed to the Fund at 877-677-9414.
Please retain this Supplement with your Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI for reference.

so, on 9/28, eixix traded at $11.38. it went ex-div the next day, to the tune of 7 cents, bringing the price down to $11.31. Near as I can tell, Morningstar hasn't made an adjustment for that 7 cents, nor have any of the other charting sites i've visited, meaning the fund lost seven cents on the day it went ex-div for seven cents. is that how ya'll read it too? or am i having another one of those moments?
eixix chart

I have tangled with a lot of legends in their own minds for decades now. Had diner with one trader (?) who claimed to be nearly omnipotent. He claimed to trade for a living and traded the stock index futures numerous time during the day and rarely lost. Quite a braggart was this guy. He posted these trades on his website in real time and they certainly looked good. Trouble is, in CFTC Docket # xx-xx it was discovered that this “super trader” as his friends liked to refer to him did not in fact even trade real money.
Then there is another “super trader” trader I knew who also liked to brag about his trading and how successful he was. He claimed he had been trading for a living for many years. He too posted a seemingly 100% winning trading record. But in CFTC Docket # xx-xx it was discovered that he had lost money trading for the previous six consecutive years.
I met another “super trader” at a seminar where I was a speaker. He was an attendee and at the time he told me how unsuccessful he had been as a trader with losses over $100,000. Less than a year later this fellow was out there bragging to everyone how he traded for a living and how successful he had been in the past. To add insult to injury many of his so called proprietary trading methods were lifted from my speech at the seminar. This fellow is still out there decades later bragging about his make believe trading prowess.
I could go on and on with multiple stories about the crooks, con men, and habitual liars that infest the trading and investing boards. They can be distinguished by their incessant non stop bragging about their trading/past trades and the fact none of them can ever back up any of their claims via real money trading statements. In the end that is all that counts. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Their most common retort for never providing real money trading statements is “ it’s none of your business”. Posting winning trades on some investment/trading board is in no way indicative of how successful someone is at trading real money at a real trading firm.
But does it really matter? Probably not. One of the biggest bragging liars out there who was sanctioned by the SEC for fabricating his trading record once wrote a book. That book more than any trading book I ever read on trading was the most influential of them all in turning around my trading back in the mid 80s.

Yes, all of that stuff you guys are saying is right. Personally, I prefer to use the Underline to make the link stand out better when embedded in other text.
Like so: Here is Davids link.
Thanks for explaining that the link icon is a picture of a link. Had no idea.

increasing disconnect
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20201013&instance_id=23090&nl=paul-krugman&productCode=PK&regi_id=22268089&segment_id=40840&te=1&uri=nyt://newsletter/54621c24-3126-5dbb-a01f-62c39cc6cc7c

David: using your original post I've found it easier to select your original message (i.e. increasing disconnect) like you were going to make it bold or italic or whatever and the hit the link icon to past your url into it and hit OK.
increasing disconnect

Although off the track of this thread (no, I'm not bitching); the HTTP link clean up is good for everyone to be aware.
Click the link just below for the link icon info.
The "LINK" icon.........yes, it is indeed a link symbol, as in, a link in a chain.
ADD: the words one has chosen to imbed a link into remain "highlighted in blue" when you have added the link..........at this time, with the highlight still in place..........click the "B" icon for bold. It you miss this step, before posting; simply drag the mouse pointer or whatever you use across the words again to highlight; then select "B" for bold.
I always use "BOLD", as too many times I see the word "link" placed within text that may not be readily apparent to the reader; as it is too light in contrast, depending on their screen/device or eyes.
Back to my hiatus.
Take care,
Catch

Companies like Xfinity do this all the time with there new customer offers while longtime customers have their fees jacked up.
Ah yes, the practice of benefiting new customers at the expense of existing customers. It's very common, though not often as blatant or infuriating as with cable companies.
How often do you see offers like: 20% off for first purchase by new customers, or: sign up for our newsletter and get X? It's a way of acquiring customers. Once acquired, some businesses assume that their customers are sticky. Banking for example - they assume that you'll put up with 0.01% interest because it's too much effort for you to move accounts.
You've identified one of the worst offenders - cable companies. Their "locked in rates" creep up month by month. They figure you won't notice or care about a dime here, a buck there. And when that "lock" expires, you have to go begging for a deal that's half as good as new customers get. They're betting that many people won't even ask; that few will walk without asking first. They're probably right.

In USAA's case, their customers are also their shareholders so in sense I should see some of these dollars making improvements at USAA.
There is an increase in USAA's revenue and thus an addition to its balance sheet. What USAA will do with that money (improvements, premium credits, whatever) is a different question.
As near as I can tell, the USAA owners are its policy holders, not all its customers. It was formed as a mutual insurance company. Ownership by policy holders is what "mutual insurance" means. USAA seems emphatic in stating that "Use of the term 'member' or 'membership' refers to membership in USAA Membership Services and does not convey any legal or ownership rights in USAA." (Many USAA pages have this footnote.)
So like Vanguard, only the a subset of its customers - not the brokerage customers - would benefit from the sale.
See also this page that seems to say that how well the company does determines dividends to (only) insurance policy holders.
https://communities.usaa.com/t5/Investments-and-Education/How-do-I-buy-stock-in-USAA/qaq-p/160763

Billionaire bond guru Jeff Gundlach seems to be worried about the US Stock market over the next 18 months:

‘Within 18 months, it’s going to crack pretty hard. I think that you want to be avoiding it for the time being. When the next big meltdown happens, I think the U.S. is going to be the worst performing market, actually, and that’ll have a lot to do with the dollar weakening.’

He suggests 25% Gold and 25% Cash...hmmm sounds like PRPFX or your home made EFT version (Cash,GLD,VTI & BND) might get he's nod as well.
heres-what-one-billionaire-says-investors-should-do-to-prepare

IMO Schwab's StreetSmart Edge is lightyears behind TDAmeritrade's ThinkDesktop - plus their Mac 'version' feels like a quirky Java-based browser plugin that's nowhere as polished as ThinkDesktop. SSE reminds me of the hideous OptionsXpress active platform that repeatedly burned me 15 years ago and what led me to ThinkorSwim.
Until ThinkDesktop gets integrated into the Schwabverse, I'm going to grumble quietly b/c I would do all my stock/option buy/sells in that app versus the website. That said, I'm keeping some $$ at TDA both for account/record access and if I want to active trade or charting using my own indicators/scripts.

Former Schwab executive here. Trust me, Schwab's goal is to make money: that's a fact, not a criticism. There are many ways to attract clients in order to do that, including fair pricing, responsive customer service, and a superior online experience via the website and brokerage platform. Comparing, for example, Schwab's trading platform with that of Vanguard is an apples-to-oranges, 20th vs. 21st century undertaking. (How it compares to TDA's I don't know.) I'm sure Schwab feels it has already compensated the appropriate parties for its acquisition of TDA accounts. Of course there is a certain tension between Schwab's interests and those of its customers which is why it doesn't offer all of its services for free. That's in the nature of every business. I can't think of any prior Schwab acquisition that resulted in payments to acquired customers.

Former Schwab executive here. Trust me, Schwab's goal is to make money: that's a fact, not a criticism. There are many ways to attract clients in order to do that, including fair pricing, responsive customer service, and a superior online experience via the website and brokerage platform. Comparing, for example, Schwab's trading platform with that of Vanguard is an apples-to-oranges, 20th vs. 21st century undertaking. (How it compares to TDA's I don't know.) I'm sure Schwab feels it has already compensated the appropriate parties for its acquisition of TDA accounts. Of course there is a certain tension between Schwab's interests and those of its customers which is why it doesn't offer all of its services for free. That's in the nature of every business. I can't think of any prior Schwab acquisition that resulted in payments to acquired customers.

Two antibody drugs for COVID-19 from J&J and Lilly have manufacturing issues. This impacted health care sector and the broader index yesterday.

Could you clarify? You suggest that Schwab is treating one class of customers (not potential customers) different from others. That sounds like you're saying that once TD Ameritrade clients became Schwab customers (via acquisition) they were no longer eligible for bonuses.
Something like that seems perfectly reasonable. Rarely does a broker offer incentives to existing clients to retain them. In this sense, Schwab is treating its customers the same - regardless of how it acquired their business, once acquired, customers are not paid bonuses.
Financial institutions will often offer bonuses to add "new money". That's something different. You're not bringing new money to Schwab from outside. For example, here's some fine print on Merrill Edge's offer: "Assets transferred from other accounts at Bank of America, MLPF&S, U.S. Trust, or 401(k) accounts administered by MLPF&S do not count towards qualifying net new assets."
Where is the outrage here? Merrill is not giving bonuses for money already in the BofA empire. It doesn't matter that the cash is new to the brokerage business if it is coming from a BofA bank account as opposed to a Chase account. It doesn't matter if assets are coming from a US Trust account that BofA acquired in 2007, as opposed to assets coming from Schwab. (Which in itself is interesting, because BofA used to own Schwab.)
Back in the 90s, the same customer acquisition games were being played by the long distance phone companies. Cash a check and switch your service. Should companies have sent "cash and switch" checks out to customers they'd already acquired via mergers? Or would that be "treat[ing] one customer differently than another"?

I decided to post about bonds since I have been reading about this subject so many times and for several years already.
The concept is "when rates rise, bonds are doomed".
So let's test it based on the past. The Fed raised the federal funds rate from 12/2015 at 0.25-0.50 to 12/2018 at 2.25-2.5%, see (link)
This looks like a pretty good possible scenario starting in 2-3 years. Let's see the effect on different fund categories from 12/31/2015 to 12/31/2018.
Below is a total performance for 3 years.
PIMIX (Multi sector) +18.75...PTIAX 14.3%
VWALX(HY Muni) +10.45...OPTAX(HY Muni) 16.7%...HYD(HY Muni index) 13.3%
MUNI (Investment grade Munis) +5.5%
BIV (all investment grade, 50% treasuries + 50% Corp) +6.7
VBTLX=BND (US tot bond index) +6.2%
VCIT (investment grade Corp) 9.15%...LQD (longer duration than VCIT, investment grade Corp) 9.3%
EIFAX (bank loan managed) 19.1%...BKLN(BL index) 10.9%
HYG (High yield) +18.5%
DODIX(core plus managed bond fund) +9.9%
VWIAX (conservative allocation about 40/60) +16.3%
So, every time you read or hear that rising rates is the end of the world please disregard it.
Bonds have a place for many investors portfolios, especially if you want to lower volatility.
If you don't care, whatever the reason then by all means, invest it all in stocks.

Test - Here's the Link - nytimes Krugman
Voila!! NOTE - you do need to delete the “ http://” that appears in the gizmo window.
I would appreciate it if folk would note the source in their description. I like to know where I am going before the link opens up.

Its simple: Choose the word(s) for your link- let's say you choose "Here's the Link".
• First copy the link's actual URL address in all of it's absurdity, as you already do.:
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20201013&instance_id=23090&nl=paul-krugman&productCode=PK&regi_id=22268089&segment_id=40840&te=1&uri=nyt://newsletter/54621c24-3126-5dbb-a01f-62c39cc6cc7c
• Then type, select and highlight the phrase that's going to represent that link:
Here's the Link
• Now go up to the little menu bar at the top of your post, and press the little icon gizmo that's next-to-last on the menu bar.
• A small window will appear, saying "Enter your URL"
• Just paste your long URL in that box. You won't be able to see the whole thing, because it's a pretty small box, but that's OK.
• Press the "OK" button on the box. That's it. It's going to look like a real mess on your screen, but just use "Prevue" to see the end product. In Prevue you can test your new link, and it should open the URL in another tab on your browser.
Here's the Link

+1 david Yes-FD1k should be worth 3-5 million, and posting from his boat in Key West. Maybe some additional info about new cars, expensive wines and his wife's dressage activities !

With Vanguard creating a brokerage would that be investor owned or is only the (original) Vanguard investor owned ? Only asking to see if those still holding (original) Vanguard investors due money if sold to say Schwab

When a company is acquired, its owners, not its customers, benefit. For example, when Adidas acquired Reebok, it was the Reebok shareholders who benefited. If you were a customer walking around in Reeboks, you didn't suddenly get some free laces.
TD Ameritrade (formerly Ameritrade) was a publicly traded company, 40% owned by Toronto Dominion Bank. So when Schwab acquired TD Ameritrade, likewise the owners of TDAmeritrade (stock holders and TD Bank) were the ones to benefit, not the customers of the business.
If Vanguard Brokerage Services were to be acquired by Schwab, it would be the owners of VBS to benefit. It turns out that "Vanguard Brokerage Services [is] a division of Vanguard Marketing Corporation." Vanguard Marketing Corporation in turn is "a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Vanguard Group, Inc".
It is common knowledge (a way of saying I'm too lazy to provide a citation) that The Vanguard Group is owned by Vanguard mutual funds which in turn are owned by the Vanguard fund shareholders.
So, if VBS were sold to Schwab, its owners, in this case Vanguard mutual fund investors, would be the ones to benefit. Not the customers of VBS, except to the extent that they were also Vanguard fund investors.